NDP House Leader Nathan Cullen was earnest in announcing a campaign to restore good behaviour to the Commons.

He dubbed it the Civility Project, presumably because Care Bears was already taken. See, I’ve proven their point by using cheap, hilarious sarcasm to poke at their well-meaning effort.

The problem isn’t the intention, which is honourable. The problem is their assumption, which is false. There was no golden age of civility where MPs debated points of argument and evidence without personal malice. No matter how delicate the touch, we can’t restore what never existed. Malice always lurks, fat and unhappy, knowing the haters will always feed it through the bars.

In the old, old days it wasn’t an issue. The proceedings of the Mother Parliament were kept secret. There was a record of the actions they took, but it was illegal to publish an account of the debates. It wasn’t until 1771 when a publisher named Miller dared print a bootlegged account of what was actually said in Parliament.

The mayor of London refused to prosecute Miller and his worship was tossed into the Tower Of London. A bit of a popular uprising ensued, so Parliament relented, the mayor was released and published records of debates began to appear.

We can surmise that by 1773 everyone hated what they read about MPs and their conduct. By 1774 it seems probable that the only people more disliked than MPs were parliamentary reporters and used horse salesmen.

Despite that prohibition on reporting the proceedings, we somehow know the first question posed to a minister occurred in England’s House of Lords in 1721, the chamber which, 146 years later, would inspire the creation of Canada’s Senate. Why does that always sound like the punchline to a joke?

We see the first faint stirrings of our question period in November 1867. Before the House rules were even settled, a question was posed to the chairman of the printing committee.

Professor Wik Pedia doesn’t reveal the nature of the question but doubtless the answer was an evasion, which would have led to hooting and mayhem before all retired for drinks and cigars. The House procedures might not have been established but guaranteed they had a bar up and running. What better place to do the real work of the people?

Speaking of evasions, I’ve avoided proposing my solution to the alleged problem. Let’s begin with the chief complainers taking themselves less seriously. They need to see themselves the way the public sees them, which would be a shattering humiliation for many of them.

But more humility and humour would improve the old barn by a factor of 10. Humour always marginalizes the angry dullards and if you can do that you’re 90% of the way there. After that, let the public sort it out.

Finally, if all else fails, perhaps there should be a way for MPs to mingle away from the House so they can get to know each other as, you know, people. Maybe they should open a bar in the basement again. Really, what could go wrong?

Sponsored Links

You can’t restore what never existed

NDP House Leader Nathan Cullen was earnest in announcing a campaign to restore good behaviour to the Commons.

He dubbed it the Civility Project, presumably because Care Bears was already taken. See, I’ve proven their point by using cheap, hilarious sarcasm to poke at their well-meaning effort.

The problem isn’t the intention, which is honourable. The problem is their assumption, which is false. There was no golden age of civility where MPs debated points of argument and evidence without personal malice. No matter how delicate the touch, we can’t restore what never existed. Malice always lurks, fat and unhappy, knowing the haters will always feed it through the bars.